One thing that most of science fiction gets wrong is that spaceships, even small and maneuverable fighters, are not airplanes. They do not contend with air resistance and accordingly do not require a wedge-shaped bow - let alone wings. Spheres or cylinders are more likely for small ships, while larger and slower ships might afford less compact designs that would deal poorly with high acceleration.
The second is manned flight. Hell, we've mapped much of the Solar system and been in orbit around about half(?) of all planets, without going further than the moon, or in fact leaving Earth orbit for very nearly 40 years. Even on Earth, it becomes increasingly more practical to wage war with remote-controlled drones than manned planes. Add the possibility of AI advancing far enough for autonomous drones, and I don't think an organic individual would be within light-hours of the battle.
Which brings us to the third part: Soldiers say that battles consist of long periods of waiting followed by brief bursts of excitement. Space battles would consist of months, possibly years, of unmanned travel and intensive computation, followed by seconds of computers trying to out-maneuver and out-predict each other, followed by hours or days of the leaders waiting for news of the outcome.
Even if that weren't bullshit according to the treaty, it is a completely ridiculous method to circumvent it. The only use (if such) of massive nuclear weapon arsenals is to be capable of launching them at a moment's notice in response to an attack. A nuke that is being carried around in a truck intimidates zero people, except your own citizens if they find out you're moving weapons of mass destruction right through their neighborhood. If the military found itself in a situation where those nukes in transit would make a difference, it would be far too late.
I have posted my Gmail address publicly without reservation for 7.5 years (see above). I get approximately 1 spam email to my inbox per week, out of a volume of several hundred per day to my spam folder.
I have relatives who use hotmail, who take paranoid care that their email is not posted on the internet in public, even in obfuscated form. They have changed addresses multiple times for this reason, but stuck with hotmail.
Influenza kills half a million people per year. Since influenza mutates like crazy, it is also constantly developing new strains that require new vaccines, and occasionally strains that are particularly deadly (like the one in 1918, which killed up to a hundred million).
He connects to the Internet only through an encrypted, password-protected channel, and copies and pastes his password from a USB thumb drive. He never types in a password directly, because, he said, “the Chinese are very good at installing key-logging software on your laptop.”
That makes no sense.
If you're using a piece of technology that may have been compromised, then it makes absolutely no difference whether you type in a password or attach a USB drive, open a text file containing the password, display it on your screen and copy it to the clipboard. There are four simple vectors of attack just in that sentence, none of which require more access than a keylogger: Clone any drive as soon as it is mounted, copy every single file that is opened, record the screen, or store everything copied in the clipboard. (2 and 4 are probably the way to go, since they take the least time and resources while focusing on what is important to the user.)
As the rest of the article makes perfectly clear, hardware is only your hardware while it is not compromised. This policy must be followed rigorously. Regardless of how many layers of VPN, tor or whatever you connect through, you have to be certain that your end of the connection actually belongs to you, in order to be certain that your information is not leaked prior to encryption or after decryption. As for connecting through someone else's computer or a computer in a public location, hah.
Santorum's problem is neither a Google problem nor a search engine problem; his problem is that he's fucking asshole.
The public discourse is not dominated by Google or Bing or any other index; it's dominated by what people say. Google tends to relay what people say, and it generally does not censor anything that is not an artificial manipulation by a spam network. It didn't censor "These WMD cannot be located." and it didn't censor "Did you mean 'french military defeats?'"
If people are expressing their view that Santorum is a fucking asshole, then no amount of fixes or disclaimers on Google's index will change that. Stephen Colbert will still grin and say that to him the name Santorum is synomyous with leadership - and nothing else. Bloggers and commenters will still chortle over sentences like "Romney squeezes out Santorum" or "Santorum talks himself into a lather". It's entirely his own fault, because homophobia, unlike homosexuality, actually is a choice. Being an asshole in public sometimes results in people publicly saying that you're an asshole.
Interpol is definitely a police force that assists when a person has committed a serious crime, and therefore it definitely should strictly limit the laws it upholds. It is not acceptable for a supposedly free nations to assist theocracies to uphold laws that would be recognized anywhere else as unjust. If those nations refuse to differentiate between actual crimes and insults to make-believe sky-fairies, then Interpol should refuse to entertain their requests at all. Better that a real criminal escapes than a non-criminal gets murdered by the state with the help of the international community.
I'm trying to come up with a more clearcut example of this than "Interpol should not help a theocratic nation to capture a fugitive facing the death penalty for blasphemy", but that's pretty much it.
It's true, ordinary language evolves and differs between contexts, which is the reason people invent technical terms, which have exactly one definition. People who know what a technical term means should fight to defend that term from usurpation and ambiguity just as corporate lawyers fight to defend trademarks from being genericized. Cancer is an astrological sign as well as a metaphoric term, which is why doctors call it a "malignant neoplasm". If you call some other medical condition a malignant neoplasm, a doctor will tell you to STFU and adhere to the correct definition.
I'm kind of confused by his use of the term "pedophilia", too, since he misuses the clinical term to describe an act. What is that act? Producing pornographic content of / engaging in sexual contact with prepubescent children? Because "voluntary" doesn't apply to that, and "maturing" by definition doesn't either, because by definition, "pedophilia" is the attraction to people who are not sexually mature.
It's possible he conflated this with sexual contact with underage physically mature people, which is an entirely different problem. The latter is completely a question of defining at what age a person is capable of informed consent, and of an imbalance of power, dependence and authority. That is the reason these laws vary by jurisdiction, and differentiate between two underage people versus an adult and a minor, or even relationships between an adult student and a teacher. That is an attempt at a simple solution for a vastly more complicated problem, because people don't magically become more responsible at eighteen, and can be just as vulnerable to abuse. The legislation is at best a stop-gap measure for something that can only be solved if society learns to understand and respect what "consent" actually means.
Fortunately, sexual activity involving minors before puberty is a vastly simpler problem because the solution is "DON'T".
Holy shit. This is a flagrant abuse of Interpol. It should result in both Saudi Arabia and Malaysia being completely kicked out immediately, and ideally blocked from issuing any extradition requests or international warrants whatsoever.
Slashdot Mirror
the Nethack Terminus.
This device is seriously a must-have for every well-equipped probe team.
At least they'll help us fight the zombies.
Painted blue, of course.
One thing that most of science fiction gets wrong is that spaceships, even small and maneuverable fighters, are not airplanes. They do not contend with air resistance and accordingly do not require a wedge-shaped bow - let alone wings. Spheres or cylinders are more likely for small ships, while larger and slower ships might afford less compact designs that would deal poorly with high acceleration.
The second is manned flight. Hell, we've mapped much of the Solar system and been in orbit around about half(?) of all planets, without going further than the moon, or in fact leaving Earth orbit for very nearly 40 years. Even on Earth, it becomes increasingly more practical to wage war with remote-controlled drones than manned planes. Add the possibility of AI advancing far enough for autonomous drones, and I don't think an organic individual would be within light-hours of the battle.
Which brings us to the third part: Soldiers say that battles consist of long periods of waiting followed by brief bursts of excitement. Space battles would consist of months, possibly years, of unmanned travel and intensive computation, followed by seconds of computers trying to out-maneuver and out-predict each other, followed by hours or days of the leaders waiting for news of the outcome.
Even if that weren't bullshit according to the treaty, it is a completely ridiculous method to circumvent it. The only use (if such) of massive nuclear weapon arsenals is to be capable of launching them at a moment's notice in response to an attack. A nuke that is being carried around in a truck intimidates zero people, except your own citizens if they find out you're moving weapons of mass destruction right through their neighborhood. If the military found itself in a situation where those nukes in transit would make a difference, it would be far too late.
Some weird setup for a Tom Clancy or 24 plot.
In this case, they'd crash more than just the system. :P
Your coherence indicates you are an Apple user.
I have posted my Gmail address publicly without reservation for 7.5 years (see above). I get approximately 1 spam email to my inbox per week, out of a volume of several hundred per day to my spam folder.
I have relatives who use hotmail, who take paranoid care that their email is not posted on the internet in public, even in obfuscated form. They have changed addresses multiple times for this reason, but stuck with hotmail.
Influenza kills half a million people per year. Since influenza mutates like crazy, it is also constantly developing new strains that require new vaccines, and occasionally strains that are particularly deadly (like the one in 1918, which killed up to a hundred million).
And hoping it coughs up some money.
....
-_-
It is, in the sense of cutting.
what
Easy; just remember that he also endorsed Intelligent Design to be taught in schools.
That makes no sense.
If you're using a piece of technology that may have been compromised, then it makes absolutely no difference whether you type in a password or attach a USB drive, open a text file containing the password, display it on your screen and copy it to the clipboard. There are four simple vectors of attack just in that sentence, none of which require more access than a keylogger: Clone any drive as soon as it is mounted, copy every single file that is opened, record the screen, or store everything copied in the clipboard. (2 and 4 are probably the way to go, since they take the least time and resources while focusing on what is important to the user.)
As the rest of the article makes perfectly clear, hardware is only your hardware while it is not compromised. This policy must be followed rigorously. Regardless of how many layers of VPN, tor or whatever you connect through, you have to be certain that your end of the connection actually belongs to you, in order to be certain that your information is not leaked prior to encryption or after decryption. As for connecting through someone else's computer or a computer in a public location, hah.
Santorum's problem is neither a Google problem nor a search engine problem; his problem is that he's fucking asshole.
The public discourse is not dominated by Google or Bing or any other index; it's dominated by what people say. Google tends to relay what people say, and it generally does not censor anything that is not an artificial manipulation by a spam network. It didn't censor "These WMD cannot be located." and it didn't censor "Did you mean 'french military defeats?'"
If people are expressing their view that Santorum is a fucking asshole, then no amount of fixes or disclaimers on Google's index will change that. Stephen Colbert will still grin and say that to him the name Santorum is synomyous with leadership - and nothing else. Bloggers and commenters will still chortle over sentences like "Romney squeezes out Santorum" or "Santorum talks himself into a lather". It's entirely his own fault, because homophobia, unlike homosexuality, actually is a choice. Being an asshole in public sometimes results in people publicly saying that you're an asshole.
Interpol is definitely a police force that assists when a person has committed a serious crime, and therefore it definitely should strictly limit the laws it upholds. It is not acceptable for a supposedly free nations to assist theocracies to uphold laws that would be recognized anywhere else as unjust. If those nations refuse to differentiate between actual crimes and insults to make-believe sky-fairies, then Interpol should refuse to entertain their requests at all. Better that a real criminal escapes than a non-criminal gets murdered by the state with the help of the international community.
I'm trying to come up with a more clearcut example of this than "Interpol should not help a theocratic nation to capture a fugitive facing the death penalty for blasphemy", but that's pretty much it.
(Then offer to return as a highly paid consultant to support it.)
It's true, ordinary language evolves and differs between contexts, which is the reason people invent technical terms, which have exactly one definition. People who know what a technical term means should fight to defend that term from usurpation and ambiguity just as corporate lawyers fight to defend trademarks from being genericized. Cancer is an astrological sign as well as a metaphoric term, which is why doctors call it a "malignant neoplasm". If you call some other medical condition a malignant neoplasm, a doctor will tell you to STFU and adhere to the correct definition.
I'm kind of confused by his use of the term "pedophilia", too, since he misuses the clinical term to describe an act. What is that act? Producing pornographic content of / engaging in sexual contact with prepubescent children? Because "voluntary" doesn't apply to that, and "maturing" by definition doesn't either, because by definition, "pedophilia" is the attraction to people who are not sexually mature.
It's possible he conflated this with sexual contact with underage physically mature people, which is an entirely different problem. The latter is completely a question of defining at what age a person is capable of informed consent, and of an imbalance of power, dependence and authority. That is the reason these laws vary by jurisdiction, and differentiate between two underage people versus an adult and a minor, or even relationships between an adult student and a teacher. That is an attempt at a simple solution for a vastly more complicated problem, because people don't magically become more responsible at eighteen, and can be just as vulnerable to abuse. The legislation is at best a stop-gap measure for something that can only be solved if society learns to understand and respect what "consent" actually means.
Fortunately, sexual activity involving minors before puberty is a vastly simpler problem because the solution is "DON'T" .
Holy shit. This is a flagrant abuse of Interpol. It should result in both Saudi Arabia and Malaysia being completely kicked out immediately, and ideally blocked from issuing any extradition requests or international warrants whatsoever.
But he's counting "self-reproduction" as two words.
How do you hide something unreadable within something readable? ... damn, you're going to make me RTFA, aren't you? :P
I think you mean: Virtually no one who uses strong passwords ends up with their password posted on pastebin.com for you to see. :P